by David R. Wheeler

graphic design

01/16/2014

A big thank-you to Tim Harrower, design guru and author of The Newspaper Designer's Handbook, who gave me his take on (what I consider to be) The New York Times' ineffectual redesign.

He says:

What concerns me on the home page isn't the layout; it's the typographic inefficiency. Do those story summaries really need bylines? Or links to comments? Or little gray kickers with unhelpful labels like MATTER, PRIVATE LIVES or HIGH & LOW FINANCE? (I'm looking at the current home page as I write this.)

There's too many teensy lightface fonts banging into each other, bogging down the headline scannability. I expect some of that typographic minutiae will get stripped away when the editors realize how cluttered and unnecessary it all is. (Notice how much cleaner the bottom half of the home page is, by comparison.)

For further comparison, take a look at theguardian.com to see what a big difference a little typographical finesse can make. Now, that's a handsome home page.

The New York Times launched its redesigned website on Jan. 8. Much fanfare ensued. The CNN/Money site declared that the new design "points to (the) future of online publishing."

Really?

Here's a screenshot of the old home page:

And a screenshot of today's homepage:

(Special thanks to my sister, Natalie, who sent me an archived page from the old Times site.)

Is there really that much difference between these two homepages?

The Times gets accused all the time of being stuck in the past. Why not take a risk? Why not be bold? Why not give it a Hulu look? Why not give it more white space? Why not give it a simpler grid?

Am I right?

Maybe not. Some of my talented current and former students, who have a better designer's eye than I have — plus they're digital natives — told me they like the new site.

Madison Wathen, the layout chief of The Asbury Collegian student newspaper that I advise, had this to say:

I love that they changed the headline links from blue to black. Not only does it look more professional, but it also lets the images to be the only source of color pop on the website. Very minimalist. I think it's more aesthetically pleasing in general because the blue links seemed to distract in a negative way whereas the black links allow your eyes to scan and navigate easier.

Will Houp, a recent graduate of mine who now attends Northwestern's graduate program at Medill, also liked the change:

I love how you can scroll through the entire article without having to click "next page." I think it makes for a better reading flow.

So I guess I'm out-voted for now. Still, one day, I hope to see a Hulu-esque homepage at nytimes.com.